Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (8809)	8/28/2009 5:03:51 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

I mean, really. How could they write it differently? The idea is to get you to consider at what point your life would not be worth living and, when you've figured it out, make sure that it's known. Like, duh. I have thoroughly analyzed that for myself. I know, pending update, which combination of factors would make my life not worth living. Don't you? Shouldn't everyone? Well, maybe not everyone. I understand that there are certain religious people who believe that their deity will authoritatively handle end of life matters and that they are just a passive player in their deaths, end of discussion. So I can understand their objection to any notion of advance "directives" given that the patient should humbly accept whatever happens naturally because trying to direct anything is a sin of pride or some such. (Not having a religious bone in my body, I'm a bit out of my element here so please make allowances.) But I doubt such a degree of submission is prevalent in the population. Most people want to spare themselves and their loved ones unnecessary pain and think that their deities are OK with that, at least within certain parameters. Having said that, it seems to me that, in the interests of church and state, a dear principle of mine, it might be better for government entities to ask if people would like the information before routinely imposing it upon those who might consider it sinful. I'll agree the bias could be interpreted as subtle Yours is the same piece I read. I still can't find bias in it. I certainly don't see anything in there that would encourage readers to favor one answer over another. Consider this list: "Think about the following statements. Do you agree with any of them? Discussing your answers with others can help them understand what is important to you and where you stand with respect to health care decisions. My life should be prolonged as long as it can, no matter what its quality, and using any means possible. I believe there are some situations in which I would not want treatments to keep me alive. I'd want my religious advisors to be consulted about all medical decisions made on my behalf to make sure they are in keeping with my religious teachings. My personal wishes would not be as important as what my family thinks is best for me. I'd want to have my pain controlled, even if the medications make me sleepy or make it difficult to have conversations with my family." As you can see, the first item on the list is doing everything possible to stay alive and none of the items involves taking active steps to die. That's hardly bias toward death. Let alone euthanasia. It's certainly not even close to euthanasia. At most it defines at what point you don't want to be resuscitated or fed intravenously. Anyway, euthanasia is illegal. The closest you can get is assisted suicide and that only in Oregon. And you can't do an advance directive for it. You have to be fully in command of your decisions to be eligible. My mom, .... My mother died in a hospital apparently never considering for a minute that she was dying. She had done about five years of chemo. My father stopped eating while in home hospice and died about a week later. I am my father's daughter.